Thread Tools

I expected a couple threads dissecting Bush's speech but I guess we all knew beforehand what was going to be said.

I'm a bit torn on the 'new' strategy because at least it finally IS a strategy. Yes it calls for more troops but it will ensure safety for Iraqis in Baghdad.

Going into this fake war we were never even told a strategy beyond 'take Baghdad, be hailed as victors.' We took Baghdad alright, but it's been a flustercluck from day 1. What were the goals of our military before except 'clean up this mess we made by coming here in the first place' and 'don't get carbombed or crash a helicopter' ? The roadmap to peace had a lot of dirt roads and typos I think.

So finally we have something resembling a purpose for our troops, who shouldn't even be there in the first place, but they are there and we've got a big situation that needs sorting out. They're basically a police force and each group of soldiers will be assigned a 'beat' and be housed in or around that neighborhood (I'm not so sure about this last part...).

This is what I heard from watching the news. I want to know what the plans are for quelling hte insurgents. That is, non-combat plans (if any)? Because that hasn't been working either, it's been exacerbating the problem. This whole thing could work out if insurgents/minority factions/desert rednecks can trust the new government and understand that they've been given franchise. How do we communicate this to them?

I think this strategy may force greater coordination among arch-enemies, specifically the Baathist, Iranian Shiite, and Al Qaeda radicals, who all hate each other, but like the United States even less. More troops will equal more deaths. It's hard to believe another 21,500 troops in a city of millions is going to change the situation much at all. It's also hard to believe someone with Bush's track record is capable of making the right choices based on the information his aides provide him with.

This link has some interesting info, but even I admit is surprisingly slanted, especially for the normally objective AP.

It's not just 20,000 US troops, its the 18 Iraqi Brigades too. The way this is going to work is good. What they are going to do, is concentrate these forces in the most violent burroughs of Baghdad where there is a high concentration of ethnically mixed neighborhoods, and where both the Sunni & Shia militia's are. (they are going to disarm or destroy the militia's now) The spread is exact to military doctrine according to some analysts comments last night, 1 per 50. This means one soldier per 50 civilians. Anyhow, the word is, the US forces will be used in two manners, one to embed with Iraqi units that will take the lead. We're talking 5-8 embeds per IA platoon. This will offer leadership, firepower, know how, and logistical strength by way of air/ground/artillery support communications. The second manner with which the US forces will be used is as a blocking force. Basically, when the IA is going door to door, the US will take up blocking positions on the outer rim of an operation. They will serve to block any enemy that try to sneak out, or to move in to reinforce the Iraqi units should they need it.

Make no bones about it, this is it. This is the last push. They are doing this because whether we like it or not, we have to draw down in early 2008. This push is being made because ISF forces are near their trarget strength, and therefore need to be brought up to speed to take over security.

Also, the 4,000 troops being sent to Al-Anbar are another good move. We've made some real gains with Sunni tribal leaders there who had previously welcomed Al-Queda, but who've since rejected them as they'd moved to murder and maim as usual. Anyhow, Ramadi, a city we previously didin't patrol, or that didn't have a police force, now does. The 4,000 troops being sent, are going to provide some protection for the police officers who the tribesmen are encouraging to join.

I guess we'll see. Since we've spent 4 years, 3,000 American lives, and billions of dollars, it makes sense to give Bush one more chance to straighten the ship rather than bailing out. So I'm for giving him the troops. But if his strategy doesn't work, responsibility should lie at his feet, and I'd be in favor of impeaching him to keep him from collecting his presidential pension and investigating the hell out of his administration to see if any criminal charges could be filed. So take the scissors and run, George, but if you fall you're going to fall on them.

There is almost no support for this. Well, other than in sudsy bubbles and sparkling snowflake fantasy land of a few (no names please). These people are the same people who have been WRONG on almost every assumption so far. But, this time, they'll have you believe, this time...they are right. Finally?

Noone believes this. Among the GOP who reject it on its face are those liberal cut and runners: Sens Brownback, Sununu, Lugar, Voinovich, Collins, Coleman, Smith, and Hagel and Snow and Specter are next.

The military never endorsed this, but those who disapproved were forced to "spend more time with their families" leaving a cadre of generals behind who hail only to King George.

Now, we have is a million dollar doorstop called the Iraq Study Group Report that goes almost completely ignored by chimp and his neo-con cabal. That report was his out, but instead, he is full speed ahead.

18 brigades of Iraqi forces! Ooooh Aaaahhh! The last time this was tried, 75% of the brigades who were called on stayed home and prayed. Didn't show up.

So what we have now folks is this. A vast "coalition of the willing" consisting of the US and a ragtag bunch of Shiite soldiers and militiamen, fighting under their Iraqi command and loyal to whom??

GWB : Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

Translation: I'm going to order an invasion of Iran. Israel will bomb Syria.

I guess we'll see. Since we've spent 4 years, 3,000 American lives, and billions of dollars, it makes sense to give Bush one more chance to straighten the ship rather than bailing out. So I'm for giving him the troops. But if his strategy doesn't work, responsibility should lie at his feet, and I'd be in favor of impeaching him to keep him from collecting his presidential pension and investigating the hell out of his administration to see if any criminal charges could be filed. So take the scissors and run, George, but if you fall you're going to fall on them.

I guess we'll see. Since we've spent 4 years, 3,000 American lives, and billions of dollars, it makes sense to give Bush one more chance to straighten the ship rather than bailing out.

Click to expand...

Why give him only one more chance? We have lots of troops left, lots of money, and even after the tens of thousands killed by Bush's war, Iraq still has millions of people left. If this approach doesn't work, why not give Bush another chance to send in another batch of troops? After all, if we spend 5 years and lose 4,000 American lives, wouldn't it make even more sense to give Bush another chance, regardless of what the American people and Congress say?

Why give him only one more chance? We have lots of troops left, lots of money, and even after the tens of thousands killed by Bush's war, Iraq still has millions of people left. If this approach doesn't work, why not give Bush another chance to send in another batch of troops? After all, if we spend 5 years and lose 4,000 American lives, wouldn't it make even more sense to give Bush another chance, regardless of what the American people and Congress say?

Click to expand...

Because his term ends in 2 years and until that, he's still the president and has some prerogative. If we let him run with the scissors there won't be anyone to blame but himself, if we pull his plug he'll blame the Democrats for not letting him finish the job and some other neo-con president (maybe Jeb Bush?) a decade down the road is going to try the same strategy, only this time he'll swear the difference will be that he finishes the job.